Increasing dissent amongst birders regards taxonomic changes and seeking an alternative listing authority? (1 Viewer)

[wolfbirder]

I have sensed in recent months, speaking to a number of local birders, that like me they feel somewhat detached and uncomfortable with the changes and decision-making processes now taking place simply to align with Avibase, and with the seeming total reliance on DNA to determine species.

A letter from Peter Smith within 'Birdwatch' magazine delivered today, epitomised what some birders at least, seem to feel, and I thought it was worth highlighting here. Even though it represents just one person's view, I get the feeling a lot of birders feel something similar, but of course I cannot quantify the level of discontent.

Sadly, many people I have talked to seem to feel increasingly distant and disenfranchised from the birding authorities, but that shouldn't be a reflection on the many very good birders and people who dedicate their time to them and the processes, yet concurrently they should be aware that there is, I honestly believe, a fairly substantial level of dissatisfaction and disillusionment that is simmering.

Anyway, here goes: -

"When a committee - AviList - decrees that Arctic Redpoll and Lesser Redpoll or Eurasian and Green-winged Teal are single species, I think it is time for field birders to take back control of our pursuit. Species are now being delineated on the basis of genetic similarities, the specifics of which we are generally not given (and which we would struggle to understand even if we were). In spite of changing opinions suggesting that DNA-derived conclusions are often not clear-cut.

Academia has displaced birdwatching. I think we should go back to the idea that birds which cannot be separated by morphology, plumage or vocalisations, and whose distributions are contiguous, are a single species. And conversely, I would regard birds that consistently look or sound different, and that have different distributions, as separate species.

Several years ago, Birdwatch produced an excellent British checklist, where every bird was a full tick - there were no half-and-half categories. Could a group of respected birdwatchers compile something like this now? It would be a list that most of us would endorse. It seems wrong when decisions on the British list are made by people who are not birders."


How do you feel as a birder? Just a storm in a teacup? Or is there an underlying unhappiness and unease with what is happening?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Birders simply have to tell themselves that they are still observing the same bird but that it has only changed status. They should not be upset or disappointed about something normal in taxonomy, this is not a disappearance in itself.

 

[Stephen Dunstan]

I 'found' a Green-winged Teal in Dublin on Saturday. It turned out that it had been seen there for a few weeks, which was reassuring as my observation was from a moving ferry! Anyway my point is that it didn't feel any less enjoyable as a birding experience because it has been 'lumped', it was clear what it was and that it had crossed the Atlantic which is always special.

 

[Steve Babbs]

It does seem to me that most listers tend to favour splits. If one were cynical, one could think that might be because they want bigger lists rather than worrying about what really is a 'species'. Of course the whole concept is man-made so it's never going to be clear all the time.

 

[THE_FERN]

I have sensed in recent months, speaking to a number of local birders, that like me they feel somewhat detached and uncomfortable with the changes and decision-making processes now taking place simply to align with Avibase,

I suspect we've confused Avibase (which I'm all in favour of) with Avilist or whatever it's called (which I'm not).

All taxonomy is subjective. This means there's no one answer and taxonomic work can never end. Trying to pretend this isn't true is silly. Arguably the task is to make people think about this enough to be able to decide what they regard as a species themselves. If they choose to follow an existing taxonomy they should know why.

 

[Farnboro John]

I dunno about favouring splits, though obviously the odd armchair tick is satisfying. I'm much more concerned that the list should approach being right and while I acknowledge what should be the dominant truth of genetic data, the inconsistencies across both experimental techniques e.g. mt vs nuclear DNA, and application - how different does DNA have to be for a split - make it sometimes hard to believe common sense underpins the work in general.

John

 

[James Lowther]

A couple of things to bear in mind:-

All potential lumps affecting the British list as a result of this process are currently lumped by Clements and/or Birdlife

Apart from Arctic Redpoll all the other potential lumps were first split in the British list after 2000

So (apart from Arctic redpoll) this isn’t really the assault on old favourites it’s being made out to be. These are all long acknowledged borderline cases.

Also, within 2 years this harmonisation process will most likely be over. At that point we will probably revert to the status quo where splits vastly outnumber lumps. And everyone will calm down again.

Cheers
James

 

[TicoTyler]

Academia has displaced birdwatching. I think we should go back to the idea that birds which cannot be separated by morphology, plumage or vocalisations, and whose distributions are contiguous, are a single species. And conversely, I would regard birds that consistently look or sound different, and that have different distributions, as separate species.

One thing that doesn't get discussed nearly enough with taxonomic decisions is what birds perceive. There are still topics we've barely scratched the surface on, but for example, ultraviolet plumage variations that mean birds look morphologically identical to humans but not to the birds themselves. Another one that comes to mind is the Cory's/Scopoli's split, where it appears smell plays a role in the birds themselves finding a mate rather than getting good looks at the P10 on the underwing of a potential mate. They can sometimes be separated by plumage but otherwise would be treated by that author as essentially one species.

The article treats birds more like collectors' items than living beings. I agree more behavior/morphological/etc. work needs to be done on a lot of species limits rather than solely looking at genetics. And it's a shame that so few life history studies are done anymore.

 

[TicoTyler]

I suspect we've confused Avibase (which I'm all in favour of) with Avilist or whatever it's called (which I'm not).

All taxonomy is subjective. This means there's no one answer and taxonomic work can never end. Trying to pretend this isn't true is silly. Arguably the task is to make people think about this enough to be able to decide what they regard as a species themselves. If they choose to follow an existing taxonomy they should know why.

I think of it as like electronics. There are advantages and disadvantages to different voltages, frequencies, and plug designs. But it would really convenient if we could all just settle on one global standard with all the pros and cons of whatever it ends up being. IF all the lists are inherently subjective, then one is (assuming sufficient rigor is applied to the process) just as good as another, no? At least with what I've seen of the Avilist project. It's not like they've pushed to go full PSC and make every island species an endemic and leave us with 30,000 species.

 

[THE_FERN]

I think of it as like electronics. There are advantages and disadvantages to different voltages, frequencies, and plug designs. But it would really convenient if we could all just settle on one global standard with all the pros and cons of whatever it ends up being. IF all the lists are inherently subjective, then one is (assuming sufficient rigor is applied to the process) just as good as another, no? At least with what I've seen of the Avilist project. It's not like they've pushed to go full PSC and make every island species an endemic and leave us with 30,000 species.

There are good scientific reasons why having more than one list helps. Ideally, you'd use alternative full phylogenies to ensure patterns are statistically robust. Where these aren't available different taxonomies provide sensitivities. Different classifications emphasise (place different weights on) different things and so may be more or less useful depending on focus

 

[Paul Clapham]

For British birders (which it looks to me like the original post is all about), the problem is solved, no? Birdwatch produced the ideal list, which should still suffice, except maybe some rarities which have showed up since then. Carry on using the Birdwatch list.

But I know I'm not addressing the right problem there. Bird lists are now controlled by a obscure organization which provides no reasons for its decisions and is not answerable to anybody. That's what I'm hearing.

My view is, when people started to list "species" they chose a word which is defined by scientists. That was all right for a while, but since "species" is necessarily not an exactly definable concept, the recent expansion of scientific work in the area of ornithology has exposed that as an issue. But scientists are notoriously not good at explaining their work to the general public, so here we are today with a vast fog of confusion.

 

[DMW]

Some very good comments in this thread which I think cover most of the issues at hand.
1. There's no closed final definition of what is a "species"
2. There's no hard cut-off point between taxa at which species status is objectively met.
3. Classification is not a science, it's a judgement. Obviously there is science behind this judgement, but interpretation differs between taxonomists.
4. Having a single taxonomic authority might be convenient but risks groupthink. It's always interesting reading the SACC contributions on committee votes to see how arbitrary many decisions are, and I don't think having a single global authority is beneficial.
5. Many of us are listers and enjoy the occasional armchair tick, but I'm increasingly disillusioned by the sheer number of splits which seem to be based on rather trivial phenotypic differences. Do we really need 50 new insular endemic drongos in Indonesia which can mostly only be identified by location?
6. I think it's the nature of science as a human process that changing things gets more kudos and feels more positive than retaining the status quo. Who would want to undertake a comprehensive review of a genus and conclude "actually the status quo looks good" over "we recommend recognising 5 new species"?
7. Combining points 5 and 6, I get a sense that the concept of the sub-species is being eroded and that there's a ratchet effect where increasingly small differences are considered "significant". Taking the example of Cory's and Scopoli's Shearwaters, what is gained by treating them as full species rather than sub-species?
8. The problem we have as birders is that we rely on the work of taxonomists, but since the widespread use of DNA evidence, there's an increased emphasis on genotypic differences which may not manifest as significant observable phenotypic differences.
9. Perhaps one answer is for birders to adopt the "agg" (aggregate) concept familiar to moth-ers, and give equal weight to aggs as species for listing purposes.

 

[wolfbirder]

I 'found' a Green-winged Teal in Dublin on Saturday. It turned out that it had been seen there for a few weeks, which was reassuring as my observation was from a moving ferry! Anyway my point is that it didn't feel any less enjoyable as a birding experience because it has been 'lumped', it was clear what it was and that it had crossed the Atlantic which is always special.

Interesting Stephen.

I must admit Arctic Redpoll was one of my favourite birds and my little brain just cannot reconciliate that it is the same as Lesser Redpoll.

It just feels wrong to me, to just say "oh its a Redpoll', but tough I guess.

 

[Xenospiza]

Interesting Stephen.

I must admit Arctic Redpoll was one of my favourite birds and my little brain just cannot reconciliate that it is the same as Lesser Redpoll.

It just feels wrong to me, to just say "oh its a Redpoll', but tough I guess.

Why would you? They're still different birds.
Just list the (additional) subspecies you have seen, even if you cannot count them.

 

[Mark Lew1s]

Exactly this. Nothing at all has changed apart from the column the tick goes in. If that substantially changes someone’s enjoyment of a bird that still looks the same, has the same ID criteria, the same patterns of occurrence etc, is the issue really with the taxonomy?

Siberian chiffchaff is one of my favourite birds and I’ve never once looked or listened to one and thought ‘oh it’s a chiffchaff’ just because it isn’t a full species.

 

[Farnboro John]

Some very good comments in this thread which I think cover most of the issues at hand.
1. There's no closed final definition of what is a "species"
2. There's no hard cut-off point between taxa at which species status is objectively met.
3. Classification is not a science, it's a judgement. Obviously there is science behind this judgement, but interpretation differs between taxonomists.
4. Having a single taxonomic authority might be convenient but risks groupthink. It's always interesting reading the SACC contributions on committee votes to see how arbitrary many decisions are, and I don't think having a single global authority is beneficial.
5. Many of us are listers and enjoy the occasional armchair tick, but I'm increasingly disillusioned by the sheer number of splits which seem to be based on rather trivial phenotypic differences. Do we really need 50 new insular endemic drongos in Indonesia which can mostly only be identified by location?
6. I think it's the nature of science as a human process that changing things gets more kudos and feels more positive than retaining the status quo. Who would want to undertake a comprehensive review of a genus and conclude "actually the status quo looks good" over "we recommend recognising 5 new species"?
7. Combining points 5 and 6, I get a sense that the concept of the sub-species is being eroded and that there's a ratchet effect where increasingly small differences are considered "significant". Taking the example of Cory's and Scopoli's Shearwaters, what is gained by treating them as full species rather than sub-species?
8. The problem we have as birders is that we rely on the work of taxonomists, but since the widespread use of DNA evidence, there's an increased emphasis on genotypic differences which may not manifest as significant observable phenotypic differences.
9. Perhaps one answer is for birders to adopt the "agg" (aggregate) concept familiar to moth-ers, and give equal weight to aggs as species for listing purposes.

This is a very good point and it applies across a lot more fields than science. In the British Army promotion chances are governed largely by annual reports so the "tour" in a job of 2-3 years is how long the incumbent has to make their mark. The result is constant change for no very good reason, because nobody ever made their name by saying: "You know what? The last guy had it exactly right."

Frequently this means things get worse not better.....

John

 

[kb57]

I don't have much to add to some of the excellent points above...just two points:

(1) While it is indeed good for science to have competing taxonomic viewpoints (DMW's point 4), for birders I think the move to a single taxonomy with AviList should be welcomed - surely it helps if we are speaking the same language by using the same list?
(2) If this means we have a period of lumping (mainly I presume in order to better align IOC with the more conservative Clements and HBW?) it shouldn't diminish the importance of enjoying and recording morphologically distinct subspecies. I've had as much pleasure from seeing Eastern black redstart; Japanese subspecies of Eurasian nuthatch, willow and marsh tit; and dark-eyed southern long-tailed tits as I've had from adding many full-fat species to my list.

 

[Mysticete]

But I know I'm not addressing the right problem there. Bird lists are now controlled by a obscure organization which provides no reasons for its decisions and is not answerable to anybody. That's what I'm hearing.

I mean that was always the case. Bird taxonomy predates the advent of modern birding by well over a century. I would say if anything things have gotten a lot better. We have actual committees rather than just a single person deciding the situation, and committees tend to publish there reasoning. Most of the data used by committees is also easy to find online if people want more information.

 

[Mysticete]

Lots of things to comment on:

First, if the Redpoll situation was the straw that broke the camel's back, even without Avilist this complex could very well have gotten lumped. Birdlife IIRC already had done so before Avilist was a thing. AOS doesn't seem to be making decisions based on avilist, and they also voted to lump. So in all likelihood, IOC would have probably have lumped Redpoll anyway. Lists generally are in agreement...the big difference really is the speed in which they adopt changes.

 

[Mysticete]

(having computer issues)

Secondly, there is the matter of the species concept, which is what a lot of these decisions come down to. Ornithology uses the biological species concept, which was practically created with birds as the model organisms. It certainly has cases where it can't clearly give you a answer: isolated populations, species which hybridize but only in certain conditions or to a limited extent, etc. But it's not like the morphological species concept, which is what the letter is advocating for, doesn't have situations where it doesn't apply real well. Since then you have the measure of how different something has to be from something else. Sure, we get our redpolls back, but we also split Song Sparrow into a dozen species. Not to mention problems with convergence, or the fact that some morphological differences can simply be down to situations like nutrition rather any real differences.

There are always going to be edge cases, no matter the concept, species that sit right in that gray zone where it really is arbitrary on whether to split and lump. So far a lot of the potential IOC lumps fall in that category.